Hi All,
Been reading Fritjof Kapra's 'Tao of Physics'. Haven't put it down for two days now.
What the guy says, in essence, is this: Modern Physics is slowly resolving itself into Eastern Religious Mysticism, very soon both might combine...
He makes a very persuasive case. Anyone here read this book? I'd like to know what people think about this.
Every religion either claims that with every new discovery, science is coming closer to their own belief system... or they eschew science completely, calling it a fool's pursuit. Even when that new discovery directly contradicts one or more of its established teachings, somehow it always lends credence to the religion.
If you take the claims of any religion - you've selected Eastern mysticism, for example - then you cherry-pick a selected interpretation of that religion - sometimes reading things literally, sometimes reading them metaphorically - you can make it sound as if it supports/agrees with just about anything you can imagine. That's because most religions are so vaguely defined that they allow for multiple interpretations, depending on how much you are willing to sacrifice literalism.
Don't believe me? Then i challenge you: read a little history, specifically, old texts by religious thinkers in your religion of choice (in your case, Eastern mysticism). See if you can find any point in history when members of religion X said, "well, according to current scientific knowledge, our religious beliefs are wrong". i can promise you won't find it, for any religion. At every stage of scientific knowledge, it will either apparently support religion X, or be in error due to the shortcoming of science. Isn't it curious that science keeps evolving and changing, sometimes in revolutionary fashion that creates complete upheavals in thought... yet it always seems to support religion X? Or, even more curious - whenever there is a disagreement it is always a failing of science... so why do religions keep turning to this peculiarly unreliable field of study to support their beliefs when their beliefs are never wrong, but science often is?
Depending on how aggressive religion X is, you may find cases of them saying: "according to our religious beliefs, science is wrong" (many religions do not bother to comment at all). They may go on from there to say that science is evil and should be destroyed/repressed, or they may simply say it is wrong and foolish and should be ignored. Some stay in that mode for a long time... and some never leave it. But some will eventually evolve and change their tune, now saying: "oh, science really did agree with religion X all along... it was just that the people who said it didn't were 'misinterpreting'".
It's kind of a game they play. i wouldn't take it seriously if i were you.
| Indi wrote: |
It's kind of a game they play. i wouldn't take it seriously if i were you. |
Well, okay.
The point is, I'm a die-hard unbeliever myself. I really wouldn't give much thought to a religion-guy claiming that his/her system is close to science. Here it's the other way round.
Fritjof Kapra is a physicist who's worked at some remarkable places and published some well-regarded papers. So I guess I've to agree he's a scientist. He, in his book, is making the statement that the newest theories in particle physics are, in essence, close to the basic beliefs held by a variety of eastern religions. He doesn't stick to any one - he covers Taoism, Zen, Budhism, Hinduism..
What struck me, more than the science <--> Religion claim, was the similarities between those individual religions. Dogmatism apart, the basic beliefs in all those religions seem to be remarkably similar. It makes one wonder what all the religeous fanaticism is really about.
Well, Indi, I'd like you to read the book, if you can get hold of it. Your pragmatism would be a nice foil to test the book against. | phpjsfan wrote: |
| Well, Indi, I'd like you to read the book, if you can get hold of it. Your pragmatism would be a nice foil to test the book against. |
These theories are hardly specific to any one book. There is a new wave "religion" springing up even as we speak that bases its principles on a bastardization of Eastern religious philosophy and modern physics (quantum mechanics, general relativity, the various unifying theories like quantum chromodynamics and string theory).
There is a "documentary" called What the ****** do we know? that tries to build the case for this religion, masquerading as a genuinely logical approach to understanding modern physics that ends up in mysticism. It is, in a word, crap. It's meandering, illogical, and incoherent... but i am honestly baffled at how many intelligent people it has fooled. They say things like: "this really made me think", although i find that claim ironic at best. What they really mean is that it has introduced new concepts to them. Very rarely have they actually taken the time to think about those concepts (or the claims of the "documentary").
For the record, the scientific claims in that "documentary" were mostly correct... they were just totally misunderstood. It was like someone using correct English words and phrases... but in nonsensical ways. The one legitimate physicist they quoted went on record later saying that the views he had discussed were the complete opposite of what was shown in the "documentary", and that he had been creatively edited.
So, i'd challenge you to consider carefully what you read in that book. Not just the facts (which are mostly correct in the "documentary" as well), but how those facts are interpreted. i'm willing to bet that you'll find that's where most of the worst of the sleight of hand is accomplished, and once you spot the linguistic and logical acrobatics they use, you can see how the argument is actually baseless. | Indi wrote: |
| They say things like: "this really made me think", although i find that claim ironic at best. What they really mean is that it has introduced new concepts to them. Very rarely have they actually taken the time to think about those concepts.... |
you got me there 
Well, you almost make it sound like there's a hidden agenda to promulgate pro-science religions. I think this is suggestive. It might be that people are getting impatient with dogmatic religions and frustrated that they're being 'left out' of the scientific circle, so they've unwittingly evolved a compromise to fill the need...this seems more logical than saying it's done on purpose, with some definite end in mind.
Science has become so specialized and complex that only few can really work in it with understanding. I've been a research guy for a few years, in a distant past life, and that's the only period in my life that i consider wasted. I was working on the so called 'cutting edge', but I wasn't doing anything useful and didn't really understand what i was doing. For that matter, I don't know if my guide did, too. In the end I got out, and have been happy and ignorant ever since.
To come back to the point, this is what I believe: there's just one 'reality', and what we feel with our senses is just a part of it - maybe too tiny a part. we can try to analyze it with 'scientific' approaches, or meditate 'religiously' on it, but those are just silly efforts. they will never succeed because the 'reality' is too big for the normal human intellect.
Human beings, for some reason, have always been curious about the 'reality', and as long as they are, theories will keep flowing. I got excited about the book because, as you said, it gave me a few new concepts. Actual thinking about it is a problem... 
| phpjsfan wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | They say things like: "this really made me think", although i find that claim ironic at best. What they really mean is that it has introduced new concepts to them. Very rarely have they actually taken the time to think about those concepts.... |
you got me there |
Oh, i wasn't pointing fingers. i don't blame people for buying into the idea. Most people are well aware of the fact that as far as modern science is concerned most traditional religions are pretty sad. Some manage to find a way to become comfortable with that by making rationalizations, others simply shrug off the inconsistencies in various ways (and of course, some refuse to make any compromises with their religious beliefs, and focus their efforts on undermining science). But there is a large group of people who believe that science is, by and large, headed in the right direction, and that we're getting very close to the end of the line... the answer to everything (and, there really is some truth in that - we don't know what the answer is yet, but we can see the path to take to it from where we are). As far as they're concerned, it's about time that science stopped simply describing the mechanism of the universe and started giving us insights to its "reason".
Unfortunately for science, the time is ripe for that. Science has moved so far beyond our common understanding that it's even at the point where scientists admit that they don't fully understand what's going on. Einstein himself called modern physics "silly". We know it's right, insofar as we are able to test... but... it's quite literally beyond the grasp of our understanding.
And all throughout history, whenever mankind has been confronted by something that was completely beyond their understanding, the preachers, the prophets and the religious leaders step forward and declare that they have the answers.
Ten thousand years ago, people wondered "why do the stars move in the sky?", and some religious leader stepped forward and said they were gods chasing each other around the sky.
Five thousand years ago, people wondered "where did the Earth/universe come from?", and some religious leader stepped forward and said that it was created by their god for some arcane purpose.
And now, people wonder about the new findings of modern physics, and, surprise surprise, we have a new breed of religious leaders stepping forward to give us answers.
None of this is new, to physics or philosophy. The only novelty is that it's using new physics... but then, every religion used the religious leaders' understanding of scientific knowledge of the time. So really, it's nothing new.
Of course, simply being an old pattern does not make it wrong. Hey, maybe they're right! i don't know. Unless they make concrete, testable claims, i can't call them wrong. All i can do is point out where they flub the scientific facts, and point out where they are reaching - leaping to unjustified conclusions rather than simply following the logic.
| phpjsfan wrote: |
| Well, you almost make it sound like there's a hidden agenda to promulgate pro-science religions. I think this is suggestive. It might be that people are getting impatient with dogmatic religions and frustrated that they're being 'left out' of the scientific circle, so they've unwittingly evolved a compromise to fill the need...this seems more logical than saying it's done on purpose, with some definite end in mind. |
That may be, but it's not something i would speculate on. After all, as i've explained, this is an age-old pattern. It's not like any of this is new. People have always wanted a deeper understanding of the universe, and they have always turned to religion for easy answers when science (such as it was) could not provide them fast enough.
| phpjsfan wrote: |
| To come back to the point, this is what I believe: there's just one 'reality', and what we feel with our senses is just a part of it - maybe too tiny a part. we can try to analyze it with 'scientific' approaches, or meditate 'religiously' on it, but those are just silly efforts. they will never succeed because the 'reality' is too big for the normal human intellect. |
Well, now, careful. Science and religion both take completely opposite approaches to trying to understand the universe.
Religion uses human understanding to try to determine/explain the answer... and so it falls flat on its face whenever human understanding is not up to the task. Even worse, there is no feedback mechanism, so not only is religion powerless to improve anything... it doesn't even know when it's wrong! If the religious leader misstated the description of the universe, or if the prophet mis-recorded what the god said... how can you ever know? If what you think you understand or observe does not agree with what they wrote (or if science does not agree), how can you ever be sure that your understanding is right and what the prophet said is a typo? You can't.
Science, on the other hand, does not rely on human understanding, it relies on observation. When human understanding is not up to the task, we find that out by the fact that we can't understand what we observe, which tells us to expand our understanding. So we're given notice when we are wrong, and when our understanding is insufficient. And we're given a guiding hand leading us toward expanding out understanding.
The problem, of course, is a question of time and ease. The religious answer is instantaneous (as soon as the prophet speaks), and you quite literally don't have to do anything but read what they wrote and say "yes, it is good." The science answer, on the other hand, takes a long time and a lot of hard work to get... and, quite often, a fair amount of effort to fully understand. In fact, i was just reading some comments by a famous string theorist, who said, in effect (i'm paraphrasing multiple comments together): "It is not an easy choice to do what i do (string theory). You have to come to terms with the fact that the answers to the questions in front of you will probably not be answered in your lifetime, and that you're only a stepping stone for future generations of string theorists."
| phpjsfan wrote: |
| Human beings, for some reason, have always been curious about the 'reality', and as long as they are, theories will keep flowing. I got excited about the book because, as you said, it gave me a few new concepts. Actual thinking about it is a problem... |
Heh. ^_^;
In all honesty, you're not alone. Even i am guilty. Maybe one in a million people who read something will actually read it critically... unless they're challenged to for one reason or another.
But, FYI, if you want to read your book critically, you probably do not need quantum mechanics. It's likely that - like the movie i mentioned - the book is generally correct about the physics facts... it's just off about the conclusions it makes using those facts.Actually, I would quickly point out that most religions stated taking a hands-off approach to science a while back; most religions interfere when there are some moral consideration at play (for example, when the main source of stem cells was from aborted fetuses). This isn't to say that fundamentalists of all stripes don't try to affect science, but that said attempts are usually rebuffed.
However, it is interesting that the biggest stumbling block to science is the New Age movement, which claims to be so much more intelligent than the older religions, especially when it comes to agriculture. Strangely, even atheism is a bigger stumbling block than regular religion, as the religious background of scientists is starting to be questioned, even as more of them gain some degree of religious awareness. In essence, scientists that aren't New Age or atheist are discredited regardless of the strength of their science, and I'm not talking the scientists that have some weird psuedo-religious belief, but some of the best scientists in the field. On the other hand, scientists that believe that merely eating genetically-modified plants will cause some of their genes to be grafted to human ones are taken seriously...
Sorry; just ranting. The basic point is that too many fundamentalists are starting to gain a bunker mentality, just as too many atheists are taking on a no-holds-barred one, and ones with a New Age mentality are trying to demonstrate that they have all of the missing answers. Between them, they creating too many weird situations between them....It will be interesting to see what fall-out of all this will be...
HM
